It confirms everything I have been saying for several months now, since February this year in fact.
|The caption reads: In this 16th century painting, "The Holy Shroud" by Giovanni Battista della Rovere, Jesus is depicted being wrapped in the burial shroud below. Above angels are shown displaying his image on the Shroud.|
There's just one thing with which I would take issue, namely Dan's description "burial shroud". Who says it's a burial shroud? It's clearly the bolt of linen supplied by Joseph of Arimathea, used to receive the body from the cross as described in Matthew, Mark and Luke. But we cannot assume it was the same cloth that enveloped Jesus in the tomb, in which case it was not a burial shroud, and indeed may never have been intended as such (see the account in the Gospel of St. John that makes brief reference to Joseph of Arimathea, but none to his cloth, instead referring to Nicodemus wrapping the body in "windings").
So why my title: "The definitive answer"?
Answer: look carefully and one can see not only a fairly accurate representation of what we now call the Shroud of Turin (top half, held by angels) but a strong hint as to how the artist assumed the image to have been formed, i.e. as soon as the body was placed in the up-and-over linen at the foot of the cross, and not as we are usually led to assume, much later in the tomb.
There appear to be several variants of the above picture, presumably by the same artist , or, late addition, his father, Gerolamo, see below) some clearer than others regarding crucial detail, and some probably restored (as Dan Porter believes to be the case in his recent posting , the latter being where I first spotted these two hugely important pictures.). Interestingly, one of those variants shows the imprinting from body onto shroud more clearly than the above picture.
The mechanism of imprinting of the body image? Can there be any doubt that the artist wanted us to know that the image was a SWEAT IMPRINT.
|Enlarged detail of the above. Note the soiling of the top surface of the linen. Soak- through of bodily sweat?|
It's maybe a pity (from this blogger's non-authenticity standpoint ) that there is not closer correspondence between image and underlying body. Still, one cannot expect to have all one's Christmases arrive at once. Indeed, where scientitic research is concerned, it's not unusual to have one's Christmases postponed indefinitely, or replaced by April Fools' days.
His contemporaries would have been thoroughly familiar with that idea, given the existence in Rome of the venerated "Veil of Veronica", it too being (according to legend) an image left on a bystander's veil when she stepped forward to wipe SWEAT and blood from the face of Jesus as he passed, bearing his cross. In short, the image on the TS was seen some 400 or so years ago as a post-mortem equivalent to the Veronica, with the difference that it was depicted less as a painting, more as a genuine imprint, one that today we term a "negative". Indeed, one can crop out the TS image in the upper half of those pictures and show that even a modern photograph of a painting of an imprint (!) responds to tone inversion and 3D-rendering in ImageJ as well if not better than modern photographs of the TS. (See my comments and graphics on Dan Porter's site* ones that I have to say were not well received!).
What I haven't mentioned yet is that this blogger/retired scientist does not regard the TS as authentic 1st century, as the artist above does, and as Dan Porter and most folk on his site do. I accept the radiocarbon dating (1260-1390) though would like to see it confirmed with samples from more sites.
I consider it to be an elaborate and indeed ingenious medieval hoax. Why those adjectives? Answer: because our artisans realized they could not create an artificial sweat imprint using liquids to mimic dried yellowed sweat. they had to find an alternative methodology that produced what could be claimed to be an ancient sweat image. Likely technology? Thermal imprinting, aka contact scorching, off a heated metal template - probably. But my 'pseudo-sweat imprint' hypothesis does not stand or fall on whether the TS image really is a simple thermal contact scorch. It is almost certainly the result of breaking chemical bonds on the most superficial of the linen fibres, and reforming in a new configuration that selectively abstract blue visible light , reflecting back filtered light to the observers' eyes that looks yellow instead of white. But while that chemical change may have been achieved by thermal modification alone, one cannot exclude alternative mechanisms that are entirely chemical, or maybe a combination of chemical and thermal. However, thermal imprinting explains neatly the 3D properties of the TS image. They were not intended, needless to say, anymore than the startling (and pleasing) result of Secondo Pia's tone-inversion were intended. Both those 19th/20th century findings were the result of a medieval artisan deploying an imprinting technique that generates those effects automatically - much better than would be the case of the TS image had simply been painted (Charles Freeman please note).
Back to the title: Is this the definitive answer to the Shroud of Turin visible in old paintings?
Answer: YES - almost certainly, as the above paintings demonstrate, but I don't suppose Dan Porter will be overjoyed at the use I've made of his website graphics.
Postscript: are the works of Giovanni Battista the only ones to show an up-and-over TS-like length of linen right next to the cross? Possibly. But a search through image files is beginning to turn up long sheets of linen appearing at the cross or the entrance to the tomb that might qualify for the description "TS-like".
See for example these passages from the biblearchaeology site:
11th century ivory - within a hundred years of the arrival of the Edessa Icon Byzantine art suddenly produces Lamentation art forms showing Jesus laid out on a large shroud in a manner resembling the Turin Shroud. Why? Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. 2 (Passion), lower panel of no. 595
...and later in the same posting:
The Christ figure depicted on threnoi and epitaphioi sometimes included special, unusual characteristics unmistakably specific to the Turin Shroud. Wilson noticed an ivory in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, a Byzantine Lamentation depiction from the early 12th century, that showed Jesus with his hands crossed over the wrists and lying on a shroud resembling a mattress (Wilson 1991: 151), all details also to be seen on the Turin Shroud but not seen anywhere else before the middle of the 10th century. Additionally, the observer will note that the shroud’s length continues above Christ’s head, obviously meant to envelop the front as well as back of the body. While the other figures have thumbs, Jesus’ hands have only four fingers. Finally, the diagonal lines giving the burial cloth a mattress-like appearance might be better understood as the artist’s naïve attempt to capture a zigzag, herringbone weave, a strong Turin Shroud feature. There is good reason to believe that the naivete often shown in these arts is likely due to the artist not being privileged to see the actual shroud in the Emperor’s relic trove, but instead working from descriptions from those who did.
Some on the new Lamentation artwork like this early 12th century ivory carving shows numerous similarities to the Shroud of Turin – how many characteristics can you find? 5-1872 from Victoria and Albert Museum online (off site link).
Note the two ladders and supported feet in the above carving, indicative of the crucifixion that preceded the transfer to Joseph's linen en route to the tomb (though if that door in the arch represents the entrance to the tomb, it's somewhat problematical.
One shall continue searching for more images that gel with the Battista interpretation. Is it too much topo hope that one or more can be found showing the TS-like image in proximity to cross and Joseph's linen AND a bodily imprint on the latter. What an extraordinary conjunction we have on those two Battista images!
Update: 22:40 Yes! Here's another, presumably from the same Italian school that was dedicated to depicting Joseph's linen in TS-like up-and-over mode:
Update: Wed 17th December
Oops. Have just discovered this picture an yet another site that adds an entirely new possibility where medieval or early Renaissance perceptions of image-imprinting were concerned.
Notice anything unusual? Jesus has only just been taken down from the cross, but is already being anointed it would seem by the two Marys. While there's no direct evidence of prior washing in this picture, though notice the paucity of blood, it opens the possibility that the imprint on Joseph's linen and by implication on the TS was perceived not as one of sweat, or of sweat exclusively, but as anointing oil. That's admittedly requires a stretch of the imagination, but then artists are not unknown for allowing imagination to stretch credulity.
Wednesday 12:40 pm
Have just discovered this additional graphic and information on Giovanni Battista della Rovere on a Spanish language website:
|Click to ENLARGE|
Here's a Google translation of the accompanying text:
|Click to ENLARGE|
Am beginning to wonder if the Battista pictures showing both Shroud and Joseph's linen separately were commissioned by the House of Savoy as promotional material, so to speak. It might explain why there are so few in that genre, given I've been unable to find new ones not already shown.
Am still searching, and will add any further discoveries here.
December 13, 2014 at 8:39 am
See also the posting "Only the Shadow Knows" on shroudstory for further debate on what is responsible for 3D properties of the TS via-vis model systems (scorch imprints, 2D graphics etc).
Update: Thursday 18th December 2014
In commenting on this posting, Dan Porter takes issue with my claim that the top half of Joseph of Arimathea's linen already shows a sweat imprint, despite just having been lowered, or re-lifted from the corpse. He thinks the dark discoloration could be something else, perhaps shadows of the people in attendance, and claims the light is coming from more than one direction.
Nope. I say that the artist was particularly keen to disabuse the viewer of that possibility. How? Look at the picture again, especially the faces, and the buildings in the distance, to deduce the direction from which most of the light is coming. It's diagonally from top left, as shown by my white arrows.In fact it may be coming in from behind the viewer as well, judging by the illumination of the corpse despite being under the sheet.
Now look at the nine figures. Which of them are capable of casting a shadow onto the linen? Answer: only the fellow with the cupcake head-dress on the extreme left. What's more, he and his hat HAVE cast a shadow, circled in yellow. No one else has, obvious from the fact that the discoloration is nothing like as dark as that single shadow. Ipso facto, the discoloration is due something else.I say it represents the causative agent - bodily sweat- that the artist imagined/supposed had finally produced the image of the TS in the top half of the picture.
PS: Why does Dan Porter describe this as a "bloody post"? Why the pejorative adjective? Is it the length that is the issue? Well, I've just spotted something else in the picture, that's about to make this posting even longer, so there.
Right at the bottom ones sees crucifxion-related hardware, shown by yellow arrows. They are (left to right): nails, claw-hammer and pincers.
Where have we seen at least one, or maybe two of those in another TS-related image? Answer: the Lirey Pilgrim's badge.
That helps cement the link between the TS and the cross (and immediate aftermath of removal from cloth to linen) NOT to the rock tomb and final preparations for burial. Put another way, it's a Matthew/Mark/Luke narrative, involving the first appearance of Joseph of Arimathea's linen, not a John-related narrative.